[arin-ppml] Staff proposing policy.

[John Curran]

On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> On Apr 28, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> 
>> Let me offer a middle ground.  If we don't want staff making a
>> policy proposal directly, could we at least get staff directly
>> involved in having conversations about policy on PPML?  Do we really
>> have to wait for a twice a year report to learn from their experiences?
> 
> +1

To be clear, is this a suggest for staff to provide more realtime input 
with respect solely to implementation issues with existing and proposed 
policies, or also with respect to policy intention and goals?

e.g.  "If 20xx-n had its second sentence reworded to match the existing
       critical infrastructure definition, that would the clearer"

or also "If 20xx-n included World of Warcraft servers in the definition of 
         critical infrastructure, that might better serve the community.. 
         (and certainly would make some of us happy)"

Just trying to understand the intent here...
Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN